will25u said:

---

Thread.

The primary purpose of retaining FusionGPS was political opposition research, pushing narratives in the press, and lobbying government officials into investigating a political opponent, followed by press leaks of those investigations. Not to assist with legal advice.

— FoiaFan (@15poundstogo) May 12, 2022

---

Analogy: I am a civil litigation attorney. My client is being sued for causing personal injury to a plaintiff. My firm retains an expert to testify in the case that my client did nothing wrong and it was all plaintiff's fault. All of my email and written communications with that expert are discoverable, and not protected by claims of privilege. If I withheld emails between myself and the expert, and told the court that the expert was helping me provide legal advice, I would be sanctioned for such a ridiculous argument.

Quote:

---

All of my email and written communications with that expert are discoverable, and not protected by claims of privilege.

---

In federal court & TX only discoverable if it's facts/assumptions relied upon by expert or compensation

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

All of my email and written communications with that expert are discoverable, and not protected by claims of privilege.

---

In federal court & TX only discoverable if it's facts/assumptions relied upon by expert or compensation

---

What the hell could Fusion GPS possibly be recognized as being an expert?

I'm not the one that made the expert analogy, but they seem to be experts in not keeping Trump from winning in 2016

BMX Bandit said:

---

I'm not the one that made the expert analogy, but they seem to be experts in not keeping Trump from winning in 2016

---

I was joking of course because no one has ever once alleged that Fusion was retained as an expert for litigation purposes. Not in the trial sense of a expert witness, at least.

And the work product argument of a company hired to generate and then disseminate those to the press as work product or privileged. The information was never supposed to be held confidential from the get-go.

So the village idiot asks..."So Durham's not the genius we thought he was and the guys in black hats are?"

whatthehey78 said:

---

So the village idiot asks..."So Durham's not the genius we thought he was and the guys in black hats robes are?"

---

FIFY.

Based on Durham's recent errors, it's fair to say that undercharging Clinesmith wasn't some brilliant 48D chess move. It was an elementary mistake due to running a barebones operation. Why was Mueller given $42 million while Durham has to scrape around with a fraction of that? https://t.co/9kgaGRO3Ae

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) May 12, 2022

Another problem just got flagged by Danchenko's attorney. Basically they're complaining that Durham isn't complying with his own deadline. This one might be due to people outside of Durham's control dragging their feet but Durham made the promise. https://t.co/iPrtoyvIt5 pic.twitter.com/Z5dDaiUAny

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) May 12, 2022

Durham on Monday take up the first court case of his collusion probe, but it's a bit of a formality. He's already won. https://t.co/fZ4aoskBov via @WSJOpinion

— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) May 12, 2022

Breaking: Here are the rules for the Sussmann trial. https://t.co/guCnPH841p

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) May 12, 2022

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

What recourse is there when the judges/courts refuse to operate as intended by law?

---

A truly long shot, lower odds than winning the Powerball lotto, would be impeaching these bent federal Judges.

Probably only possible impeachments would be Republicans winning a super majority in both the House and Senate. Even then with the Mitt Romneys of the world still a long shot.

2/2 Legally speaking, they had a "common interest." I explain here. https://t.co/N36Vp08ag9

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) May 13, 2022

@ProfMJCleveland , in her inestimable way, has concisely captured the issues surrounding the privilege issue in the Sussmann case decided by Judge Cooper yesterday. Her article: https://t.co/Mrmc50lcMb

— Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) (@KingMakerFT) May 13, 2022

Everything in @ProfMJCleveland ‘s analysis speaks for itself, so I recommend everyone read the article. I would add that it’s particularly ironic the the judge found Fusion didn’t have to turn over documents subject to Rodney Joffe’s attorny-client privilege with Sussmann.

— Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) (@KingMakerFT) May 13, 2022

I use the word “ironic” because in finding this common interest, the court found as a fact that the joint venture conspiracy described by Durham in other filings actually existed. Yet the court also held that Durham would NOT be allowed to present evidence of that joint venture .

— Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) (@KingMakerFT) May 13, 2022

I guess nobody should claim the law is always consistent and logical. Maybe Dickens was on to something when he wrote, “If the law supposes that …, the law is a ass- a idiot.”

— Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) (@KingMakerFT) May 13, 2022

will25u said:

---

@ProfMJCleveland , in her inestimable way, has concisely captured the issues surrounding the privilege issue in the Sussmann case decided by Judge Cooper yesterday. Her article: https://t.co/Mrmc50lcMb

— Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) (@KingMakerFT) May 13, 2022

Everything in @ProfMJCleveland ‘s analysis speaks for itself, so I recommend everyone read the article. I would add that it’s particularly ironic the the judge found Fusion didn’t have to turn over documents subject to Rodney Joffe’s attorny-client privilege with Sussmann.

— Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) (@KingMakerFT) May 13, 2022

I use the word “ironic” because in finding this common interest, the court found as a fact that the joint venture conspiracy described by Durham in other filings actually existed. Yet the court also held that Durham would NOT be allowed to present evidence of that joint venture .

— Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) (@KingMakerFT) May 13, 2022

I guess nobody should claim the law is always consistent and logical. Maybe Dickens was on to something when he wrote, “If the law supposes that …, the law is a ass- a idiot.”

— Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) (@KingMakerFT) May 13, 2022

---

Isn't this a relevance issue? The charge is lying to the FBI. Would this force Durham to say, f*@k it, and file the conspiracy charges?

Sarge 91 said:

---

will25u said:

---

@ProfMJCleveland , in her inestimable way, has concisely captured the issues surrounding the privilege issue in the Sussmann case decided by Judge Cooper yesterday. Her article: https://t.co/Mrmc50lcMb

— Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) (@KingMakerFT) May 13, 2022

Everything in @ProfMJCleveland ‘s analysis speaks for itself, so I recommend everyone read the article. I would add that it’s particularly ironic the the judge found Fusion didn’t have to turn over documents subject to Rodney Joffe’s attorny-client privilege with Sussmann.

— Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) (@KingMakerFT) May 13, 2022

I use the word “ironic” because in finding this common interest, the court found as a fact that the joint venture conspiracy described by Durham in other filings actually existed. Yet the court also held that Durham would NOT be allowed to present evidence of that joint venture .

— Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) (@KingMakerFT) May 13, 2022

I guess nobody should claim the law is always consistent and logical. Maybe Dickens was on to something when he wrote, “If the law supposes that …, the law is a ass- a idiot.”

— Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) (@KingMakerFT) May 13, 2022

---

Isn't this a relevance issue? The charge is lying to the FBI. Would this force Durham to say, f*@k it, and file the conspiracy charges?

---

Exactly! My question earlier! File it and "get er done!!!"

Jury questionaire: https://t.co/I6VRH9yOOn

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) May 13, 2022

BREAKING: Court holds Sussmann witnesses can testify re the notes taken later at which McCabe claimed Sussmann represented a client. https://t.co/zuWWrweKJR

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) May 13, 2022

It's been mentioned before; I don't remember where though.

Unbelievable

Ulysses90 said:

---

Quote:

---

Judge Christopher Cooper's ties to leading Democrats and key figure in discredited Trump-Russia probe should disqualify him from case of Michael Sussmann, lawyer who fed anti-Trump dirt to FBI while hiding connection to Hillary Clinton campaign.

---

He's married to the lawyer that rpresentEd Lisa Page according to Judicial Watch.

---

From 9/20/21

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

will25u said:

---

Did we discuss this? Holy moly.

Yes, it's true. Judge Chris Cooper (Sussmann trial) is married to Amy Jeffries, Lisa Page's lawyer. (pic)

Merrick Garland officiated the marriage of Cooper and Jeffries. lol https://t.co/HG7NglkxTw pic.twitter.com/S5kILee2P4

— TheLastRefuge (@TheLastRefuge2) May 13, 2022

---

The entire system is rigged...

---

Putin is on line one.

NM.

Big day for this thread tomorrow.

Sussman on trial. I am sure someone will find a reporter that is in the courtroom for a Twitter thread.

Durham’s Day in Court: Sussmann False-Statement Trial Begins - @isaac_schorr curtain-opener @NRO ... https://t.co/2AW1HkzEaL

— Andy McCarthy (@AndrewCMcCarthy) May 16, 2022

My curtain-raiser on Sussmann Trial in @nypost this weekend ... https://t.co/AwT6nBqjKQ via @nypost

— Andy McCarthy (@AndrewCMcCarthy) May 16, 2022

Reminder: Today isn't just jury selection, it's also the first break in the privilege dam Durham has had to contend with. This might be the fuel to go straight to a grand jury and get the other 1500 they've been trying to hide. pic.twitter.com/9MiAtDYGJB

— Mccabe's Porsche on Blocks (@Larry_Beech) May 16, 2022

And hopefully this all leads to the perps having...https://t.co/PAfRmQiPld

— Mr Wolf (@DamonRiddle3) May 16, 2022

Michael Flynn files $50 million claim against feds in prelude to lawsuit over Russia probe | Just The News https://t.co/BaDFbYY9VP

— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) May 16, 2022

Here is someone that will be in the courtroom covering the trial.

NEW: Here is what you need to know about John Durham’s trial against Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann, which kicks off today with jury selection. It’s a big test for the special counsel. I’ll be in court everyday covering it until we get a verdict.https://t.co/QAPGVvsPFB

— Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) May 16, 2022

The biggest problem is this is a D.C. jury. Finding jurors who won't decide solely on politics is going to be next to impossible.

Yes, to some extent this could be a real life version, again, of Dave Chappelle's R Kelly jury skit, as far as finding a Democrat guilty of something.

aggiehawg said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

will25u said:

---

Did we discuss this? Holy moly.

Yes, it's true. Judge Chris Cooper (Sussmann trial) is married to Amy Jeffries, Lisa Page's lawyer. (pic)

Merrick Garland officiated the marriage of Cooper and Jeffries. lol https://t.co/HG7NglkxTw pic.twitter.com/S5kILee2P4

— TheLastRefuge (@TheLastRefuge2) May 13, 2022

---

The entire system is rigged...

---

Putin is on line one.

---

How does that judge not have to recuse himself? Or are D.C. judges so incestuous that it would be impossible to find a judge without prejudices in The Swamp?

Laura Seago will be the key witness in the Sussmann trial...against Hillary Clinton. @FDRLST https://t.co/SIUsK235My

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) May 16, 2022

The man, the MYTH, the Legend?

Something we don’t see very often…

John Durham out and about 👊 pic.twitter.com/rfK4hhoN42

— Suzy (@Suzy_NotSuzy) May 16, 2022